>>>v1.1+ Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.2.9R)

[Deathbringer221]

3 hours ago, popcap200 said:

Yeah, I'm waiting to play again.  I  pop on here every few days to see if anyone's posted "My turrets aren't sticking and pen finally works!" and no one has yet.  Guess I'll keep waiting.

Same to be honest, last time I tried to just do a custom 1vs1 1940 battleships 3 out of 4 of my turrets were not shooting whatsoever. They were also "ladder aiming" bugged (at this point I think it's the ladder aiming that is causing turrets not to fire, somehow that bug got worst, since when it went away at around 5km from the ship they all started to fire again)

It would be really nice to get information from the devs about the issue 

[o Barão]

Spain 1890 campaign feedback.

(1) Battle against the USA.

They managed to catch a tiny BB with green crew quality, in the North Atlantic, sailing to join a TF. All is lost, right?

Nice try AI, but it was not to be.

ISSUE: The AI lacks aggressiveness to close up for torpedo attacks with the TBs or the CLs. Instead, all the divisions are focus in making battle lines and sailing in a parallel line with my ship. This works very well with CAs, BCs and BBs divisions. The problem is in this era (1894) the guns are incredibly inaccurate at medium ranges, so I only needed to keep my distance and kill or force to disengage the nearest target.

 

(2) AI launching torpedoes to the wrong side bug.

 

(3) Minor allies helping & AI running away from some battles.

An Ottoman CL is helping the British to attack my convoy. This is going to be interesting to see.🙂

Sadly no. They run away. But it is a convoy battle. A battle that only exist because they decided to attack my convoy in the campaign map. What it is the point to have "defend from ambush" or "defend convoy" encounters to only see the AI running away in this type of battles???? I cannot stress enough how bad this is for the gameplay.

 

(4) AI TF badly damaged from the start.

2 spanish TBs encountered an enemy fleet. What was supposed to be hell or a situation to run away and fight another day, it becomes a bloodbath. Reason? All the enemy ships are heavily damaged right from the start.

[Suribachi]

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

Sadly no. They run away. But it is a convoy battle. A battle that only exist because they decided to attack my convoy in the campaign map. What it is the point to have "defend from ambush" or "defend convoy" encounters to only see the AI running away in this type of battles???? I cannot stress enough how bad this is for the gameplay.

 

The easiest way I know how to fix this is to have a timer that starts on the first shot the AI takes.  What do I mean by this?  When the battle starts, have the AI be as aggressive as it normally is in a fleet battle where it outnumbers the player.  Only after the AI fires its first main gun shot from any ship does a in-game timer start.  At this point, the AI can make the decision to run.  This way, the player gets some sort of engagement in the battle instead of staring at an open ocean.

As for how long the AI should engage at a minimum?  I don't think I have an answer.  Depending on the odds, a ship could take no more than 30 seconds to judge that it is hopelessly outmatched, for example a single DD vs a 27 ship task force, or it can be upwards of 5 minutes if the AI thinks it has a chance.  I am open to discussion on it.

[ZorinW]

1 hour ago, Suribachi said:

The easiest way I know how to fix this is to have a timer that starts on the first shot the AI takes.  What do I mean by this?  When the battle starts, have the AI be as aggressive as it normally is in a fleet battle where it outnumbers the player.  Only after the AI fires its first main gun shot from any ship does a in-game timer start.  At this point, the AI can make the decision to run.  This way, the player gets some sort of engagement in the battle instead of staring at an open ocean.

As for how long the AI should engage at a minimum?  I don't think I have an answer.  Depending on the odds, a ship could take no more than 30 seconds to judge that it is hopelessly outmatched, for example a single DD vs a 27 ship task force, or it can be upwards of 5 minutes if the AI thinks it has a chance.  I am open to discussion on it.

The one main problem is that a fair number (most to be honest) of battles should never even take place. Why for example does the game generate a battle of ancient AI light and heavy cruisers vs. player BBs? No one would ever order such an atttack in the first place.

Or say I have a single BB in transit to another port. It would have strict ordwrs to not engage in any combat, then why is it thrown in a convoy attack?

If all this was sorted properly we wouldn't habe to worry about ghost battles with AI ships on the run all the time.

[Zuikaku]

Anyone ever seen TF with invade orders to generate convoy attack missions? It seems that only ship in port with sea control orders generate these missions. So, what's the point of invade order?

[Suribachi]

3 hours ago, ZorinW said:

The one main problem is that a fair number (most to be honest) of battles should never even take place. Why for example does the game generate a battle of ancient AI light and heavy cruisers vs. player BBs? No one would ever order such an atttack in the first place.

Or say I have a single BB in transit to another port. It would have strict ordwrs to not engage in any combat, then why is it thrown in a convoy attack?

If all this was sorted properly we wouldn't habe to worry about ghost battles with AI ships on the run all the time.

I agree that the battles should not choose random ships to pull into a battle.  This is why I want to have a tasking system.

Tasking system:  allow the player to assign tasks to specific ships or groups of ships.

Example 1:  I have 2 BB, 4 CA, and 8 DD that I want to always move as a single unit.  Thus I make them Task Force 3.  Now whenever I click the symbol to move the task force, instead of selecting the individual ships to move, it moves the entire task force as if it were a single ship.  This also means that the task force would be dragged into battle in its entirety, as it would historically.  I would use this group as a hunter killer group for enemy fleets and act flexible within other roles like convoy defense and raiding.

Example 2:  Have a bunch of DD in port.  Assign them the task Escort.  Now, whenever a convoy mission appears within range where you defend your own transports, these DD would be the ones acting as escort, not random ships.

Example 3: Have a bunch of CL in distant waters.  Assign them the task Raid.  Now, like example 2 above, these ships have priority for attacking enemy convoys.


Since the above examples all have different tasks, they would be considered first in being assigned to that mission type.  This being said, it should not be 100% of the time.  After all, some randomness is fun.  For example, a task force meant for hunting down other task forces can be dragged into a convoy mission by chance, however it should be a slim chance or if no raid or escort units are around.

[Nick Thomadis]

On 2/19/2023 at 8:34 PM, Lima said:

Do I need to artificially set values for AI? I would prefer not to do this to avoid bugs. I think the situation can be seen without this.

The thing is that the loss of, say, 20 transports between turns will be noticeable, and if the same number of transports are sunk in battles, it will have no effect.

SPain volunteered to illustrate, so...

SPain TC before fights 

These are 45 transports lost in battles.

This is SPain TC at the next turn - no effect. 45 lost transports is just nothing.

We have checked and what appears to confuse you Lima, is that the save uses the previous turn's value, which is bigger, to apply the new calculations of losses. 

So in the save (the text file you use to check Transport Capacity, I assume) you will never see a value matching the current turn's number. 

But if you pass many turns, you should notice, in the long term a decrease of Transport Capacity. It is advised to test your own Transport Capacity, because as a player you can negate funds and have a consistent decrease of capacity.

In the game, everything works as expected, as far as we tested.

[applegrcoug]

Since we seem to be on the topic of convoys and battles...

 

Why do I need battleships?  They almost never get selected to engage.  It is always my CAs. 

Why do I have to engage a single DD that has a speed advantage and runs away from the beginning?  PITA.  

Continuing on the run away theme, I had a situation of a giant TF with several BB (one of them a 93,000 ton monster) and several CA versus a lone DD.  So I hit auto resolve rather than waste time with chasing a figment.  Every one of my ships takes damage.  The giant BB takes heavy damage.  Then, logically it is teleported from the Mediterranean to the Gilbert Islands for repairs. By the time it is repaired and sails back, I could build a new one.  WTF?  

Edited February 21, 2023 by applegrcoug

[Deathbringer221]

1 hour ago, applegrcoug said:

Since we seem to be on the topic of convoys and battles...

 

Why do I need battleships?  They almost never get selected to engage.  It is always my CAs. 

Why do I have to engage a single DD that has a speed advantage and runs away from the beginning?  PITA.  

Continuing on the run away theme, I had a situation of a giant TF with several BB (one of them a 93,000 ton monster) and several CA versus a lone DD.  So I hit auto resolve rather than waste time with chasing a figment.  Every one of my ships takes damage.  The giant BB takes heavy damage.  Then, logically it is teleported from the Mediterranean to the Gilbert Islands for repairs. By the time it is repaired and sails back, I could build a new one.  WTF?  

Battleships are mainly used for 2 things really, Trade protection ( they provide the most power per ton and if you get naval blockaded you're done) and long range firepower. If your battleships are not part of a lot of generated battles it's probably because you built them with minimum range when designing them.

Range is used by the game a lot to generate missions / favorable engagements and for example if you have above 50% range slider battleship with Germany you will get port strike mission quite often or Heavy Battle engagements where your battleships / battlecruisers will fight usually mid-sized fleets. If you ended up building BBs with next to no range not to worry you can still make use of them, you just have to deploy task forces to try and block chokepoints (like Gibraltar) and if the AI wants to go threw them they will often get forced into a "Task Force failed to escape" scenario.

Now the DD intercepting a entire task force... YES MY GOD IS THAT ANNOYING, and you know the worst part about auto-resolving anything? If you take just a small amount of damage from the auto-resolve and then fight another battle soon afterwards because you told your fleet to not go for repairs. They will be even more damaged! Pretty much a half-pen single hit on a battleship causing not even 1% damage can end up becoming 35-50% damage in the course of 3 battles. Because the game doesn't keep the damage values correctly from battle to battle. So not bringing back a task force that got minor damaged in a battle will end up costing you 2-3 times longer repairs down the road from this bug.

And this situation is the most annoying when trying to invade something and a single DD automatically forces your entire task force back WHEN YOU TOLD THEM NOT TO REPAIR. Making the invasion fail entirely... truly the most annoying bug for me aside the turret locking bug introduced in 1.2.1 again.

[Schmitty21]

So I have no idea if how or if a naval invasion will succeed or fail, even if I meet the tonnage requirements 7 turns in a row, and when I fail the enemy gets over 10k victory points. This is extremely frustrating, especially when playing as Japan. Either give us a way to judge whether or not we should attempt the invasion or remove the ridiculous penalty for what is just a guessing game.

[applegrcoug]

57 minutes ago, Schmitty21 said:

So I have no idea if how or if a naval invasion will succeed or fail, even if I meet the tonnage requirements 7 turns in a row, and when I fail the enemy gets over 10k victory points. This is extremely frustrating, especially when playing as Japan. Either give us a way to judge whether or not we should attempt the invasion or remove the ridiculous penalty for what is just a guessing game.

I think I finally figured out how to successfully do invasions a few days ago...

 

If it calls for 500,000 tons on the mission bug, you better bring 3-5x that.  I invaded Southern Italy and it called for a million...I brought nearly four million.  I have successfully carried out three invasions in a row....when I can actually get them to go through that is.

 

 

NOW THEN, my problem seems to be initiating an invasion.  I have a bunch of ships adjacent to a territory.  I go to politics and select invasion.  Next turn, nothing.  Then I wait a turn, move even more tonnage adjacent, call for an invasion and again nothing.  My last four or five invasions have failed to even initialize.

 

[SodaBit]

Please, for the love of God, and all that is holy, remove the weight increases from late game techs. 
EG for why this is such an issue: HMS Ark Royal, originally designed in 1932, at a displacement of exactly 77,011 tons.

As you can imagine, it takes a hot minute to build one of these, I have 4 under construction right now, and I'm going to need 28 more. Obviously, I can't build all 32 at once, that'd cause a massive steel shortage which would be a very bad idea in the middle of a war against the United States. But before the first batch is even half done, the design is no longer valid, as it's now 47 tons overweight. The repeatable techs are the cause of this, namely...
"Advanced Bulkhead Protection"

and "Super Torpedo Protection"
And, since I have the largest technology budget in the world, at almost $1B thrown at R&D every month, the design's weight is going to increase AGAIN before the first batch is actually finished, which is when I would start the next batch, if I was able. I'm fine with small buffs to survivability, but these small buffs are not worth the weight increase in the slightest, especially since I can count on one hand the amount of torpedo's I've taken in this campaign, and Ark Royal, as well as most of the ships I design, have 0% flash fire chance to begin with, and I have gone an entire campaign before without a single ammo detonation on board one of my ships. Meanwhile, the drawbacks these techs incur might seem small at first, half a percent of additional hull weight, 1.5% additional gun weight, until you realize that we're taking about a few percentage points of several thousand tons of steel. Ark Royal's hull weights an astounding 17,000 tons, and her turrets weigh 5,000 tons a piece.

The only saving grace of this design is that I'll have Improved Face Hardening in 4 months, which should bring the weight back down a bit, allowing me to build the design again. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to build 28 of them at the same time to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future.
Edit: Turns out there is no saving grace to this design. Researching something that gave a passive weight decrease didn't lower the weight back into acceptable range. In fact, it didn't lower the design's weight at all. So, modifiers that increase a design's weight DO apply, but modifiers that decrease a design's weight DON'T.

Kinda feels like the system's set up to screw me over at this point. Sucks to suck I guess.

Edited February 22, 2023 by SodaBit

[Spitfire_97]

4 hours ago, SodaBit said:

Kinda feels like the system's set up to screw me over at this point

This. Why does it feel like the game is actively preventing me from enjoying it?

You designed an awesome super powerful BB design? Nah it's full of flaws

You prepared an invasion fleet to take a territory you've had your eye on all game? Nah the government says no

You bought the enemy fleet to bear in a battle line engagement? Nah the AI runs away

You made a dedicated class of minesweepers to clear passage for your main fleet? Nah they hit a bunch of mines anyway

It's like the game makes you believe you can do all these things, until you actually try doing those things and realise that because RNG or because bad game design you can't

[Lima]

I talked about this issue somewhere in 1.09. In short, there are two problems - positive weight modifiers are not applied instantly (unlike the negative ones), as shown by @SodaBit , and their research rate is too slow.

There are weight-reducing and flaws-reducing modifiers in the "Hull Construction" branch.

While, for example, the "Hull protection" branch works only on continuous improvement of torpedo protection, which constantly increases the hull weight.

Thus, weight-reducing modifiers in the "Hull Construction" branch simply can't keep up with all the branches that increase weight, because at the same time the "Hull Construction" is working on flaws-reducing modifiers.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Lima
\

[Wowzery]

Speaking of tonnage.  While I like the total tonnage you can be building, nice limiting factor and makes one actually plan, I think there needs to be a wartime addition to this to reflect gearing up for war, battle damage, etc.

[o Barão]

Spain 1890 campaign feedback. (Part II)

(1) Before the invasion...

The troops defending the region will increase after the invasion started. Well the issue is Sardinia is an island, and I completely control the seas around, strange situation I guess.

(2) southern and central Italy map issue.

1. To know what is happening in the southern Italy region, I need to hover the mouse close to Naples and Gaeta. Both are cities from central Italy.

2. Gaeta and Naples are central Italy cities, the strange about this is the fact their sea region is the Adriatic, not the western Mediterranean.

(3) reemerging nations don't show up in the politics tab.

 

A request.

Please consider adding the option to declare war to minor nations. A big diplomacy penalty can be added towards the other major nations if that situation happens for balance.

 

 

[o Barão]

Should be here a description telling the player what each option does?

[o Barão]

If a ship surrenders, is sunk? We should be able to capture enemy ships that surrender in battle.

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello everyone,

After your recent reports, we decided to offer another set of game improvements which are the following:

Hotfix Update v1.2.3  23/2/2023
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/3655271359538612796

[o Barão]

7 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello everyone,

After your recent reports, we decided to offer another set of game improvements which are the following:

Hotfix Update v1.2.3  23/2/2023
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/3656395991470099390 

It seems this is the correct link.

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/3655271359538612796

[StoneofTriumph]

Hitting the End Battle button when it pops up (not the exit battle button in the Escape menu) now has the same effect as selecting autoresolve- I had a battle where I sank three battleships and all of the enemy's cruisers, and the enemy's remaining ships were far enough away that the End Battle button popped up. When I hit it, the battle result showed all of the ships I had sunk having survived with light damage.

[Nick Thomadis]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

It seems this is the correct link.

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/3655271359538612796

Fixed. Thanks

 

41 minutes ago, StoneofTriumph said:

Hitting the End Battle button when it pops up (not the exit battle button in the Escape menu) now has the same effect as selecting autoresolve- I had a battle where I sank three battleships and all of the enemy's cruisers, and the enemy's remaining ships were far enough away that the End Battle button popped up. When I hit it, the battle result showed all of the ships I had sunk having survived with light damage.

Hmm, we will have to check it tomorrow, thank you. Please advise someone else if you have such results, but better let some turns pass.

 

EDIT:

It appears that it is an UI issue, it does not show the second window report of the battle which has the summary of losses, and because you proceed to a next battle, it is confusing. We will revert to fix properly.

[Dave P.]

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

If a ship surrenders, is sunk? We should be able to capture enemy ships that surrender in battle.

That would be fun, but honestly, they're usually so shot up it would take months in a yard to repair them and then we'd be left with a terrible AI-design.

Maybe if there was a way to refit them, then at least there's be value it siezing a BB/BC sized hull. But I'd rather just get a few bucks in scrap value, or a note saying the remaining crew managed to scuttle the ship before taking to the lifeboats.

[Dave P.]

Weird bug: fought a battle (modern cruisers w/ 11" MkV guns vs. some obsolete BBs), sunk some enemy ships, lost one of mine. (The high VP count and large disparity would, I'd think, be a good indicator of ships being sunk.)

The after action report screen showed the losses, but the summary here shows them all damaged and still afloat, and my fleet screen also lists all the ships as afloat. (Although the destroyer I "lost" needs 7 months of repairs.)

Admittedly, they were lost to flooding and fires, so, is the game only looking at structure values after the last patch?

 

Edit: this doesn't seem to effect auto-resolved battles.

Do I need to start a new campaign?

Edited February 23, 2023 by Dave P.

[Nick Thomadis]

- Temporarily Reverted: Fixed a bug that caused extra damage to ships after a battle. because it caused some errors to UI.